This post over at Miller's Time has finally prompted me to write about something that I've been postponing for a while: a defense of the Electoral College. Apologies to den Beste for the length.
After the 2000 election, most Democrats, and many others, jumped all over the "anachronistic" Electoral College, decrying it as a vestige of the past that needs reform or elimination. Why not just have a national vote for President? After all states don't mean all that much any more. Others asked "why winner-takes-all in each state?" Let's divvy it up by Congressional seat, they suggested (Maine and Nebraska do just this (although it didn't matter in 2000)). Or perhaps apportion the electoral vote to the percentage each candidate won in the state?
I like none of these -- of all the arrangements, the electoral college still seems best. While it has the obvious (and recently demonstrated) "defect" of deciding close elections differently than the popular vote, this defect is intentional, and serves a purpose.
The Framer's reasons for an Electoral College were several. In order to accomodate the small-state/big-state compromise that led to the 2-vote-per-state Senate, they needed a method to allow small states slightly greater weight in selecting a President. There was great fear that, in a strict popular vote election, the urban states would decide all contests, and no candidate would even consider the issues of the smaller and rural states. Yet they wanted the election conducted in the States, not in Congress. The EC solved this, providing a tie-breaker in close elections where the candidate taking the most states (of any size) has an advantage (the two "senate seat" votes). This is precisely what happened in 2000.
Another reason is what we would today call a "firewall." Even in 1787, state politics were dicey enough that no one in, say, Virginia, wanted to absolutely rely on vote-counting in, say, New Jersey. After all, Eldridge Gerry (inventor of the "gerrymander") was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. In more recent years, vote-counting in Chicago and St. Louis has been quite suspect. In a close election for President, there would be great temptation for local officials to pad the vote if the election was strictly by popular vote. Even with the EC it happens (e.g. 1960 Chicago), but the damage cannot extend past the given state's electors. Note that much of the controversy in Florida in 2000 involved local vote counting practices, state election official's behavior, and the Florida Supreme Court's wholesale rewriting of election law. Which brings up the next point...
A third (and probably more modern) reason is that recounts in a close election are also limited to the state or states in question. Consider the mess in Florida. Then consider the mess of a nationwide recount, with 50 state Supreme Courts, 50 sets of state election officials, and tens of thousands of local election boards. Some of whom are going to cheat to get their man over. There is no natural closure in a close election in this kind of system. We'd still be at it.
Lastly, there is the matter of needing a majority. In the electoral vote system, it is quite possible to have a majority of electoral votes without a majority of popular votes -- the last President to be elected with a popular vote majority was George Bush the Elder. Clinton, Carter, Nixon (1968) and Kennedy all were elected with less than 50% of the popular vote. But the EC all gave them a majority as the splinter party votes were eliminated at the state level. Of third-party candidates in recent history, only George Wallace in 1968 won any states. In a direct vote system, the requirement for a majority would be necessarily abolished. This is perhaps acceptable, but could lead to Presidents elected with over 60% opposition.
Now, what about the "fairer" Congressional-district apportionment, or straight state-wide vote apportionment, rather than winner-take all? The first will be a non-starter until there is no such thing as a Gerrymander. It is easy to "fix" the partisan outcome in a congressional district by careful attention to district line drawing. Wonderously odd results can be manufactured. In 1988, the two major parties polled even for Congress, but the Democrats gained a large majority of seats due to gerrymandering. The second option allows significant third-party vote totals, or nearly any such vote totals in a close election, to throw the whole thing into the House of Representatives. Nader would have received enough electoral votes in 2000 in this system to throw the election into the House (and therefore to Bush). Historically, this has been a bad thing, so I see no reason to make it more likely.
One last note, of the suggested alternate choices, only a popular vote method elects Gore in 2000. No matter how you apportion electoral votes (winner-takes-all, congressional district or statewise proportional) Bush wins (if only in the House), and in the congressional district system, Bush wins handily.
I favor apportionment by Congressional district. Your point about gerrymandering is well-taken; however, it still seems fairer than forcing Xrlq to effective vote for Howard Dean in 2004 and Hillary Clinton in 2008, solely because Xrlq was dumb enough to admit to the U.S. Census that he lived in California in 2000.
Posted by: Xrlq at December 11, 2003 02:50 PMI expect Bush to beat Dean in CA in 2004. 2008 is about 5 infinities out, so I cannot even guess.
Note that there is nothing in the US Constitution to prevent CA from setting up apportionment, and I'm pretty sure that the Feds cannot force it one way or the other.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at December 11, 2003 03:12 PMThe United States is a republic, not a democracy. I wish that more people would realize that. Our founding fathers opposed democracy, and republicans and conservatives should oppose it as well. We should also oppose attempts to impose "democracy" on foreign lands through direct state-sponsored intervention and the liberal spending of taxpayer dollars. We can promote our values through conservative and libertarian means, without having to go to war. We need a traditional republican domestic and foreign policy, which would be a tremendous turnaround from the statist policies of Clinton and Bush.
Posted by: Aakash at December 12, 2003 05:46 PMIt is a interesting point that Gore would have lost by all computations except the popular vote. Most people would consider this the most important computation. The electoral system gives a disproportionate amount of power to small states that already have too much power by nature of two votes in the Senate. According to the 2000 census and the numbers for the 2000 election one voter from Wyoming had the same effect on the election as nearly 4 voters from Arizona (this was more of a result of Arizona picking up population during the 90's but not having its congressional (and electoral)apportionment changed until after the 2000 election), more than 3.2 New Yorkers or 3.1 Californians.
This isn't an issue of Democrat vs. Republican -its an issue of the disenfranchised American voter. As is posted above, America is not a democracy. However, if we are too complacent to change our own system we should not be invading other countries to allow them democracy that we don't have.
Posted by: josh rosenthal at February 3, 2004 03:49 PMIt is interesting to note that Gore's people had predicted a Gore electoral vote win and popular vote loss, and had prepared a white paper on the COnstitutional process to defend the situation. This may be one reason why they never (officially) protested the electoral vote loss, but concentrated on the Florida vote.
While there is a dimunition of one-man-one-vote in the electoral college (and the Senate, for that matter), the alternative is completely unacceptable. Not only is a national recount a flipping nightmare, but I'm still not ready to assume Chicago can't manufacture 100,000 votes.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at February 3, 2004 04:30 PMhttp://www.geocities.com/samboni1342/state_polls.htm
Choosing the President 2004: A Citizen's Guide to the Electoral Process
P.113 Voter Participation extremely low in caucuses because of front loaded primary schedule . NEED to have a shorter Primary Season The several months in between March and conventions - voters lose all interest.
P.141 Electoral Collage "winner take all" therefore target swing states only.
P.159 Con Electoral College:
* Ignores Popular Vote
* Discourages Voter turnout
* Violated the one person one -vote ideal
* Doesn't require Electors to vote the way they Pledged to vote.
* Fosters a two-party system
P.164 Newscasts early projections while people are still voting - discourage some voters to not even bother and therefore change the outcome in elections by blustering that the election pau listo already over..
P.177 Florida Supreme Court ordered recounts to keep going, (helping Gore), Bush appealed to U.S. Supreme Court which highly unusual to accept case since it's state policy and politics. The prevailing argument from Bush was that it was of "national importance". First USSC unanimous said Florida had to explain reason for extending recount.
2/8 FSC ordered full statewide manual recount. Bush AGAIN appealed to USSC, who 5-4 issued stay on all recounts
12/12 USSC made 12/8 order final. Due to "absence of uniform rules" to determine intent of the voters, violating equal protection, a new use of the clause, which the Court had previously applied in very narrow terms.
A decentralized system giving counties main responsibility for conducting elections, voters in poor counties are much more likely to have their votes NOT counted right or NOT counted at all - as in the richer counties (who tend to be GOP)
________________________________________
Second book published in 1992 "After the People Vote" by Walter Berns [: After the People Vote: A Guide to the Electoral College]
(put out by American Enterprise Institute whose board of trustees includes CEO's from Dow Chemical, Procter & Gamble, Forbes, Amoco, SmithKline Beecham, GTE, Eli Lilly, Citicorp, et al.) (This book is an argument defending the Electoral College!)
ix We wrote this book because we (want to keep the status quo of CEO run elections) are good people., N.J. Ornstein /MacNeil/Leher, Goldwin, Mann, Ranney, Penniman Scammon
Electoral College is; "All or nothing" = 3rd party must have pluralities within states to win . Regional 3rd party slight better off in electoral college but still deflated vote. 3rd party vote is a "wasted voted" unless express purpose is to win enough votes to give to one of the duoplies in concessions. Very hard to to gain this deadlock because might steal votes from "the wrong side" of America's duopoly.. This books tells you what would happen if "no one wins" ( Hah! I thought that happened every four years!)
P.8 538 Electors are not required to be chosen by popular vote. USSC 1892
P.10 Fedlaw 1887 state to resolve election disputes. (so how did the USSC get involved in 2000?) determined by the states "shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution"
P.12 Violation of a pledge is a misdemeanor fourth degree in some states. Faithful elector, faithless elector, Unpledged Elector. From 1789 to 1980 only eight electors violated their pledges. Electors retain their constitutional status of free agent.
P.17 Official count of electors votes, Prez of Senate calls for any objections to certificates. Both houses have to reject a challenged ballot for objection to prevail. 1887 Fedlaw used in 1969.
P.20 House precedent 1825: If no candidate got a majority the state was recorded as divided, and no vote was cast.
P.22 Senators vote as individuals for the top two. House as part of state delegation for top three. Senate could boycott quorum VP choice if majority party.
P.23 PSA 1948 Speaker pro tempore has choice to decline Prez job. Congress then chooses from confirmed secretaries of state who are not under impeachment.
P.25 If dies or withdraws in Nov. then new choice 1912 Sherman 1972 Eagleton. if Jan 6 - 20 under 20th amendment. Question if Mid December to 1/6 VP OK. Prez is not Presidential Elect yet until 1/6. (sealed) then Senate will declare state of the vote. Only of concern if deceased or withdrawn had won or if no majority.
P.28 20th Amendment Section 4 = Congress never passed such law for case of death of any person CHOSEN from Congress. Section 3 deal with President elect an VP-elect.
P.30 Very rare to win Electoral and not Popular. 1888 So long as the rules are followed then no crisis in succession, unchallengeable constitutional and legal claims.
Part Two 3x Disputed Elections
1800 Hamilton, Burr ended years later in a duel.
1824 Illegitimate and unconstitutional nomination King Caucus Personal attacks by partisan newspapers. Uproar of protests, public insults. Another duel.
1876 Decided by special Electoral Commission to settle controversy over disputed votes. Campaign bitter and dirty, hurled insults and lies. Carpetbag rule. Near chaos ensued. Serious violence. Grant sent in troops where votes were tabulated. Bribery, forgery, ballot box stuffing on both sides. Constitution does not outline specific procedures to be followed in the case of conflicting returns from any state. Democratic House rejected Commission's decision, Republican Senate upheld under rules Senate decision stood. House investigation found flagrant fraud by Republicans in the South - and Democratic bribery and vote abuse. Compromise of 1877 becomes post civil War era. 1887 Congress procedure to avoid this problem in future.
P.44 1967 ABA recommended Electoral College be abolished. and replaced by a nationwide popular vote for president, with the provision for a runoff elections between the top two candidates if no one received at least 40% of the poplar vote.
"Electoral College is archaic, undemocratic, complex, ambiguous, indirect and dangerous"
Defense:
A long-standing constitutional arrangement secures, by its very age, that habitual popular acceptance which is an indispensable ingredient in constitutional legitimacy. ( So this is ... what ? ' This is the way we always done it ' defense?)
P.48
(1) Electoral College Nationalizing substitute for the state legislatures Original choice was straight national popular vote.
(2) Technology impractical in colonial times (This book defending EC with disjointed logic - saying old is new)
(3) Last reason was because of the SLAVES . Substitution of electors to take care of the difference between total population and state voting population. (The book's defense of EC is groundless since all three reasons no need no more)
P.51 Federally democratic or nationally democratic. Should (?) Federally democratic aspect of the Electoral College should be abandon in order to prevent to possible election of a president who had not won the national popular vote? answer = NAH!
(Oh yeah the book goes on a long spiel about the remotest possibly in these Homogenized times! This book happened before 2000 stolen Election. Deeply divided nation! ) General ticket system 1830's Book tries to equate federalism state rights with unit rule and Centralism equality is bad. Removing state setup is bad especially at this time right now - (whatta a bunch of malarkey! Stopped reading at 53 because on continuing B.S. disjointed logic).
P. 60 A rebuttal is hardly required.. ( then continues with such fantastic absurdities that)
P. 68 direct elections would be really really bad. (for big companies and CEO that is)